and that's all for this edition of "newsline." i'm catherine kobayashi in tokyo. do stay with us.

captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> brown: the senate today confirmed white house counterterrorism advisor john brennan to be the next director of the c.i.a. good evening. i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, we get the latest on the vote coming after a fight and a filibuster over the president's authority to order drone strikes on american citizens on u.s. soil. >> brown: then, we update the

moves to reach a bipartisan budget deal in washington in a newsmaker interview with house minority leader nancy pelosi. >> we're here because the republicans will not... will not close any special interest tax loopholes in order to reduce the deficit, none. >> woodruff: ray suarez examines the united nations security council's move to impose new sanctions on north korea and pyongyang's threat to launch a nuclear strike on the u.s. >> brown: and hari sreenivasan looks at the passage of the nation's strictest abortion law in arkansas, where nearly all procedures will have to be done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and friends of the newshour. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: another key seat in president obama's national security team was filled today.

the senate approved a new leader for the central intelligence agency, but not before a war of words over unmanned aircraft and presidential power. >> the nomination is confirmed. >> brown: john brennan was confirmed as the c.i.a.'s next director 63-34 after a drama- filled 24 hours. it began yesterday when republican senator rand paul of kentucky launched a filibuster. he demanded a firm answer on whether drone aircraft might ever target american citizens inside the united states. attorney general eric holder had sent paul a letter saying that however unlikely, in extraordinary circumstances, it might happen. >> no one will ever forget jane fonda swiveling around in north vietnamese armored guns, and it was despicable. it is one thing if you want to try her for treason, but are you going to just drop a drone hellfire missile on jane fonda? are you going to drop a drone

hellfire missile on those at kent state? >> brown: several other republicans and one democrat, ron wyden, joined paul. and minority leader mitch mcconnell offered his support last night after the filibuster ended and again this morning. >> and the administration should just answer the question. there's no reason we cannot get this question answered today, and we should get this question answered today. >> brown: but the morning also revealed a division in republican ranks. arizona senator john mccain, who was a prisoner of war in vietnam, scoffed at paul's claim that someone like jane fonda would ever have been targeted. >> to somehow allege or infer that the president of the united states is going to kill somebody like jane fonda or somebody who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous. >> brown: and south carolina senator lindsey graham accused his colleagues of using a double standard. >> i don't remember any of you

coming down here suggesting that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. you know, i don't even remember the harshest critics of president bush on the democratic side. they had a drone program back then. >> brown: at the white house, spokesman jay carney underscored the constitutional limitations on the president's power. >> the president swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and he is bound by the law. whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gunshot, the law and the constitution apply in the same way. >> brown: and this afternoon, attorney general holder sent paul a new letter. in it, he said: senator paul declared himself satisfied with that answer. >> so, i am very pleased to have gotten this response back from the attorney general of the united states, and i think that

americans should see this battle that we've had in the last 24 hours as something that's good for the country. >> brown: shortly thereafter, the senate ended the debate and conrmedohn brennan. now, we examine what's behind the senate shenanigans, politically and practically. we are joined by: scott shane, a national security reporter at the "new york times"; and niels lesniewski, who covers the senate for "roll call." is it took a while, but in the end the president got his nominee. briefly remind us about john brennan's experience. clearly someone well known at the agency he'll head. >> john brennan spent 25 years at the c.i.a. they was station chief in riyadh in saudi arabia. he actually set up the national counterterrorism center and then for four years he been basically at president obama's right hand overseeing counterterrorism and in that role he's overseen the expansion of the drone strikes in pakistan in yemen, and in somalia.

so he's perhaps one of -- he's certainly one of the government's most experienced counterterrorism hands. brown brown niels, what was playing out today especially with senators mccain and graham upbraiding rd paul? >> what happened after last night we noticed senator mccain and senator graham were not among those joining in the effort on the senate floor in support of senator paul during his almost 13-hour filibuster. and what they were really -- today they were really protesting against even the context of the question that senator paul sought and eventually received an answer to from the obama administration which sort of suggested that there could be a possibility that either president obama or some future president may want to use a missile from a drone to actually kill an american citizen at a coffee shop somewhere on u.s. soil.

>> well, how strong is this divide and what is the -- what's behind -- i mean, what's the key issue behind it that they're fighting over? >> well, the republican party itself has had sort of a differing opinion for a while now on national security policy. there's the wing of the party which senator paul is becoming an emerging voice on which is more skeptical of broad executive power, i would say, in this sort of regard. versus the traditional more hawkish national security voices that are the likes of senator mccain and senator graham that have been the party standard bearers over the last numb number of years. brown brown i heard senator paul talk about how the filibuster came-- at least we assume-- without a lot of planning it sounds like. >> that's true.

i notice he and his staff had been preparing for the possibility of doing this but yesterday was a perfect storm or perhaps a perfect non-storm in that because there was no massive amount of snow at the capital that caused people to leave early, with people in the building not having a whole lot to do in some cases we're able to watch their internal t.v. monitors or externally and watch the senate floor and join in the effort with senator paul because a lot of their meetings in some cases had already been canceled. brown brown now, scott shane, from the national security side, this question of the use of drones on american soil how much does it fit into the thinking or planning of national security agencies? how much has it ever been debated? >> well, drones, of course, the vast majority of the drones, the unmanned aircraft are being used for surveillance, not for killing.

>> i think it's fair to say there'been very little thinking about using armed drones on american soil. it's conceiveable in the future that police shoot criminals in emergency situations all the time. it's certainly imaginable in the future that are drones might be part of such a scenario. but i think it's fair to say that the security agencies have not found senator paul's questions sort of out of fantasy land and have not done a lot of thinking about killing americans at home. they have in one case in september of 2011 killed one american overseas and that was anwar al-awlaki whohand had joined the al qaeda branch in yemen and was actively plotting terrorism against the united states. >> brown: but you got the sense that they were taken by surprise that this became the -- i guess the final issue for john brennan's confirmation?

>> yeah, i think it was seen as something outlandish. but it may reflect that the administration has been extremely secretive about the drone program, about the targeting killing program. and attorney general eric holder promised yesterday that as president obama has said that there will be greater transparency on this program in the future and that may dispel some of these fears that people have about how drones might be used. brown brown niels, where were the democrats because in the past it would often be liberals raising objections to drones and other policies. >> well, one democratic senator did lend his voice to some of the objections, that's oregon democrat ron widen. t hs ban voice on these issues for a fairly long time. senator richard durbin, the number-two democrat in the senate did say that he is going to hold hearings at his judiciary subcommit sfwe the

constitutionality of the drone program and its particular use presumably for u.s. citizens, both on domestic land and as was in the case that was just referenced overseas. and so i think we'll see more of that as the time goes on and there will be more questions asked probably from a broader array of senators than we saw last night. >> brown: scott shane, with john brennan in now, the senate intelligence committee report on enhanced interrogation program, it's not public yet, you wrote about this. it's not public yet but we're certainly learning more about it and it sounds like it will be very damning of the c.i.a. program. so he's got to face that right off, right? >> that's right. this is a 6,000 page study of the interrogation program in the years after 9/11 for at the c.i.a. -called black sites involving techniques like waterboarding, slamming people into walls, cold nudity and that kind of thing.

and the senators who on the intelligence committee have said enough about this report, it's quite clear to it condemns the use of those techniques. says they didn't work very well and that they -- that the program was mismanaged and that, in fact, c.i.a. officials did not accurately describe what was going on to the white house to congress, to the justice department. so it's quite damning and john brennan as one of his first tasks at c.i.a. is going to have to manage the agency's response to this. there's still many people working at c.i.a. who worked on that program and the c.i.a. itself is divided about the use of these methods that many call torture just as the public has been divided and indeed the intelligence committee is divided. >> brown: scott shane of the "new york times," niels lesniewski of "roll call, thank you very much."

>> woodruff: still to come on the newshour: house minority leader nancy pelosi on the budget negotiations and more; on north korea, new sanctions and new threats; plus, the strictest abortion law in the nation. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: the u.s. has captured osama bin laden's spokesman and flown him to new york to face terror charges. reports today said sulaiman abu ghaith was seized in jordan sometime in the last week. abu ghaith served as a main voice of al qaeda and was also bin laden's son-in-law. in video recordings, he urged muslims to fight the u.s. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. he is expected to make an initial appearance tomorrow in federal court in new york. in syria, u.n. officials negotiated with the leader of a rebel group holding 21 u.n. peacekeepers. they were taken captive yesterday in a village in the golan heights. videos have since been posted online purportedly showing the peacekeepers saying that they are safe and being treated well. at the same time, there has been intense shelling in the area where they're being held. the first bill to curb u.s. gun

violence began moving in the senate today. democrats on the judiciary commtee,oined one republican, voted to make illegal gun purchases a federal crime. violations would be punishable by up to 25 years in prison. the committee is also considering a ban on assault- style weapons and high capacity magazines, proposed by california democrat diane feinstein. >> these assault weapons have a great attraction for grievance killers. my view is that, how could i stand by and see this carnage go on? and members, this isn't going to stop. it's going to continue on, and we have a chance to do something about it. >> sreenivasan: the partisan divide over feinstein's bill was quickly exposed. texas republican john cornyn argued a previous assault weapons ban did not work. he said the new bill fails to address the real key to mass shootings. >> the common thread was mental illness.

no one wants disturbed young men-- or women, for that matter- - to have access to firearms. unfortunately, this legislation focuses not on the perilous intersection of mental illness and guns but on cosmetic features of certain firearms. >> sreenivasan: two other bills are also before the committee, requiring universal background checks and providing $40 million a year for schools to buy security gear. carl levin of michigan announced he is retiring. levin has held his seat since 1978 and is the longest serving senator many michigan's history. he issued a statement saying the decision is difficult but he won't run for reelection in 2014. levin is 78 years old. a late-winter storm spun up the east coast today and caused new damage in places still recovering from hurricane sandy. coastal flooding was a big concern for new jersey and massachusetts. at the same time, up to eight inches of wet, heavy snow was expected across new england. this storm has proved

unpredictable, sparing washington but dumping up to 20 inches in parts of virginia. in economic news, the federal reserve today reported household wealth is finally nearing pre- recession levels after more than five years. it topped $66 trillion the dow jones industrial average gained 33 points to close above 14,329, a new record high. the nasdaq rose more than nine points to close at 3,232. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: and we turn to the budget battles in washington, where president obama has embarked on a kind of charm offensive as he begins new rounds of fiscal negotiations with republicans. newshour congressional correspondent kwame holman begins our coverage. >> reporter: the occasion was lunch with the president, and congressman paul ryan was a special guest. he's the house budget committee chairman and last year's republican vice presidential nominee. joining him, chris van hollen, the top democrat on the house budget panel.

the focus was back on crafting a long-term deficit deal. white house press secretary jay carney: >> we are now engaged in a process that will allow the congress, both houses, to move forward with budget proposals. the president will submit his budget. that he is trying to have a conversation with lawmakers who have expressed either specific or general interest in compromise and hope that that results in a positive outcome. >> reporter: the president's recently launched effort was on display last night: a dinner with a dozen republican senators at a washington hotel. it lasted two hours, and there were generally positive reviews. >> senator, how did the meeting go? >> just fine, fine, great, wonderful. >> reporter: for the president, it marked a departure from campaign-style events during the failed effort to prevent across- the-board spending cuts, the sequester. republicans had insisted he should be talking directly with lawmakers.

and today, house speaker john boehner welcomed the shift in strategy. >> it was really kind of interesting that this week we've gone 180. now he's going to-- after being in office now for four years, he's actually going to sit down and talk to members. i think it's a sign, a hopeful sign, and i'm hopeful that something will come out of it. >> reporter: house minority leader nancy pelosi also called the president's effort "important," but she said mr. obama is not to blame for past failures to reach agreement. >> i think we didn't reach a grand bargain because the speaker of the house walked away from an agreement that he and the president had arrived at, probably because he couldn't sell it to his own caucus. >> reporter: the more immediate concern for lawmakers is funding the government past march 27 to the end of the fiscal year. the house passed a republican bill yesterday that would do just that. it locks in the sequester cuts-- $85 billion for the next seven months-- but provides some

flexibility in administering the reductions. boehner today warned senate democrats not to make significant changes to the house version. >> i would urge democrat leaders in the senate to not get greedy and get carried away and try to put forward the possibility of a government shutdown. >> reporter: senate democrats plan to pass their own version of a government funding bill, but majority leader harry reid said this week he's "cautiously optimistic" about getting an agreement with the house. >> woodruff: and to our newsmaker interview with the leader of the democrats in the house of representatives. i spoke with her a short time ago. house minority leader nuclear weapons, welcome to the newshour. >> my pleasure to be here. >> woodruff: so president obama is making this very public effort now to reach out to congressional republicans. there was a dinner with 12 senators last night. he had lunch today with house

budget committee chairman paul ryan, there were phone calls. is all this a good idea. >> before we go to far with paul ryan and chris van holland, the ranking democrat on the budget committee as well. it's always a good idea to bring people in to talk about the agenda. the president has not been doing this in terms of formally having meals but the republicans certainly and democrats, too, have had their opportunity to share their views with the president. in fact, in my view i served with a few presidents, too, as leader and speaker and i've never seen the patience, the willingness to listen to accommodate views as president obama has extended to e republicans. >> woodruff: would you be doing this if you were in his place? you were quoted at your own news conference saying he has already been patient and you were saying it's the republicans who've been the obstacles. >> well, what i said, they asked

me if he had had din with these people would there have been a deal last year? and i said the president -- the reason they didn't have this deal last year is because speaker boehner walked away from the agreement that the two of them had i think because they couldn't sell it in his own caucus. but having a meal is maybe what is different here. i with the republican leadership and the house -- the democratic leadership as well, the president has given us ample opportunity to share our views with him. to hear his comments on it. he's been very generous in listening, accommodating, trying to incorporate into proposals. maybe it's important to go beyond the leadership because they're in an obstructive mode and maybe members will be more open.

>> woodruff: is the president softening his position in these meetings? do you know what he's saying to the republicans? >> well, i wasn't there and as recently as last evening we just know the subject matter, they talked about immigration, debt ceiling, we talked about the budget, i'm sure. i don't know the details of of course. but it's not a question of softening your position. it's a question of having an additional approach, extending the reach that you might have had with the republican leadership now told republican members. >> one of the things we know republicans say they very much want the president to do is give ground on entitlements. they want cuts in benefits, in benefit increases and, in fact, the president has talked about in the past raising the eligibility age for medicare, social security. he has talked about the possibility of means testing for higher income seniors.

are you and the president on the same page on that? >> well, i don't actually -- i don't think -- you say the president has talked about raising the age, he's not put that forth as a propose avl as far as i know because that really doesn't save any money. what i would say is that i think we're all on the same page in saying that we want to keep our promises to our seniors and the families, whether it's about health security in medicare or medicaid, whether it's in social security. in ordertor do that we must make sure that as baby boomers have arrived and continue to arrive in the over 62 to 65 category that we have -- that we can keep those promises and that these initiatives will be fiscally sound well into the future. so how do we look at those and what changes can we make as we go forward? but that does mean cuts in benefits. it means strengthening stabilities by perhaps raising

the -- well, i won't go into any specifics because if you name one then they'll say you didn't name another. but there are ways to put this on the table. medicare on its own table and say how do we strengthen medicare. social security, how do we strengthen medicare. we have already taken important steps to strengthen medical care in the affordable care act. that's one of the beauties of it. already we're seeing benefits in the decrease in the rate of increase in health costs. before medicare it was .4%, almost a half percentage point only in terms of rate of growth. that's important. and medicaid there was no increase. >> woodruff: but just in a word, do you see progress being made on the entitlements? >> yes, i do. but i make a distinction. if you want to come to the table to talk about how we strengthen the health and economic security for the middle-class, then let's talk. if you want to take trophies and say we're going to raise the

age-- which doesn't produce money-- then if you want to subscribe to the notion that some republicans-- but not all-- do that medicare should wither on the vine, that social security has no place i a free society-- this is something of the things they have said, but not all. and so i think that if the subject is to make these fiscally sound and so that we go forward with honoring the guarantee, let's talk. >> woodruff: quick question about the sequester. the white house spent a lot of time, the president did, talking about the dire consequences once the sequester kicked in. did the president, did the white house over-- underestimate, i should say, the republicans determination not to give any ground on revenue? >> what's important about this discussion is why we're here. we're here because the republicans will not-- will not-- close any special interest tax loopholes in order to reduce

the deficit. they say we'll do it in order to reduce some rates. i don't paint all republicans with that brush. some have said we may have to close loopholes to reduce the deficit and what do they want to protect? they want to protect tax breaks for corporate jets and now reduce four million meals on wheels. they want to protect tax breaks for big oil and what do we lose? the education of our little children suffers, big oil gains. when they attack tax cuts for sending jobs overseas while we lose 750,000 jobs here. the point is that this is spending. these are called tax expenditures. there is a spending as much as any other spending that you do in the budget if you spend on tax cuts for special interests in these loopholes. so that's really what part of it is. don't take it from me. the chairman of the fed has said the cost of the sqeser will lose

at least $750,000, will slow down our recovery and we will not reduce the deficit. >> woodruff: let me ask about something where there does appear to be common ground. rand paul, the senator yesterday held an almost all day long filibuster, 13 hours on the senate floor on the question of unmanned drones. the administration policy toward americans. the white house clarified today it will not targ americans, it doesn't have the authority to target americans on u.s. soil. i presume you agree with that. but what about the overall administration, obama administration policy? anti-terrorism policy, the use of unmanned drones? >> i believe in -- the prerogatives of congress to have oversight over all of these kinds of activities of the executive branch and i've been a fighter for the congressional prerogative under a democratic or republican president. so rand paul -- senator paul sad he did not have enough information, i don't know what

he had. but i do know that unless somebody is launching an attack on the united states from within the united states that the administration is not going to be using any drones then nor do i believe the they have any desire to do so. but i don't think that's really the issue. >> woodruff: internationally, though, the broad policy, though do you have a -- are you comfortable with the administration policy? >> yes, i am. just to make a point about it, what they talk about is the what is the imminence? what is the imminence of a person's being a threat to the united states? is it something that is plotting and planning the next five days or five years. what is the imminence of it? and the timing is really important as to whether you would curtail right from the start or whether you would take a chance and wait longer. but our responsibility is between freedom of the american

people and security and that's the balance we have to strike and if it's an american overseas who has imminent plans to harm the united states, i think the american people want to protect it. >> woodruff: i have a couple more questions i want to is ask you for online but for now, house minority leader nancy pelosi. >> thank you. >> pelley: thank you. >> woodruff: online you can find out what leader pelosi said for gun control legislation. for the record, we've invited speaker john boehner and majority leader eric cantor to talk with us. we hope to bring you a conversation with one of them next week. >> brown: hours before a vote on new sanctions, north korea threatened a nuclear strike against the u.s. today. ray suarez has the story. ( gavel banging ) >> suarez: it took less than three minutes for the u.n. security council to agree on its fourth round of sanctions against north korea.

the vote was unanimous, imposing new financial curbs. u.s. ambassador to the u.n., susan rice: >> taken together, these sanctions will bite and bite hard. they increase north korea's isolation and raise the cost to north korea's leaders of defying the international community. >> suarez: the sanctions aim to make it more difficult for north korea's leader, kim jong-un, to finance his nuclear and missile programs. in december, the north successfully fired a long-range rocket, saying it was designed to orbit a satellite. and last month, north koreans cheered scientists who carried out the country's third nuclear test. that event directly provoked today's u.n. action. north korea's closest ally, china, even helped draft the sanctions. >> we want to see full implementation of the resolution.

the top priority now is to defuse the tension, bring down the heat. ( applause ) >> suarez: instead, the sounds and images from pyongyang today were all about defiance. civilians and members of the military staged a mass rally and state television carried a direct threat against the u.s. >> ( translated ): since the united states is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest. >> suarez: north korea also threatened this week to nullify the armistice that ended the korean war in 1953. it cited war games involving u.s. and south korean forces and said it would have to respond. but last month, the new president of south korea, park geun-hye, issued a warning of

her own in her inaugural address. >> ( translated ): i will not tolerate any action that threatens the lives of our people and the security of our nation. >> suarez: amid all of this, a moment some called "basketball diplomacy." former chicago bulls star dennis rodman visited north korea last week. he quoted kim jong-un as saying "i don't want to do war" and asing that president obama "call him." white house officials denounced the rodman visit as nothing more than a publicity stunt. for more on the sanctions and north korea's response, i'm joined by victor cha, a former national security council official, now a senior advisor at the center for strategic and international studies. and joseph detrani, formerly senior advisor and north korea mission manager in the office of director of national intelligence. he's now president of the intelligence and national security alliance.

mr. cha, what did the security council vote to do in these latest sanctions. >> well, this latest round of sanctions, ray, came at three things. first is interdicting of cargo expected to be of north korean origin that carry missile parts or things of that nature. a blacklist on the import of certain items people can use for their weapons programs as well as individuals and the third element has to do with financial sanctions. trying to block -- u.n. member states blocking financial transactions by north korean companies or front companies that have to be financing. so a comprehensive set of sanctions. >> suarez: joseph detrani, is it hard to craft sanctions? this is the fourth round of escalating sanctions. when a country is so isolated, so poor, so removed from international commerce. >> it's difficult. given that you have over 190 countries, they've found a way

to get around the three resolutions of the initial sanctions that were imposed. i think with this fourth resolution it's very powerful and i think the power comes from the unanimity of the international community saying enough is enough and to include china helping with the drafting and so forth. so i think the consensus is implementation of these four resolutions and, indeed, if all countries do implement them, as victor just indicated now, it would have significant impact on the ability to move. finances move money, most of it is through illicit means and also to acquire materials for their nuclear and missile programs and proliferate said materials so i think it's powerful. >> suarez: including china? a big change? is that the biggest change in this latest vote in >> china has signed on to the previous resolutions, so they've done again. and that's a good political gesture and they had to negotiate the language of the sanctions with the united states. the real question, ray, is in the followthrough, whether china really enforces the sanctions.

in the past one could argue that they haven't been as vigilant in enforcing the sanctions as one would like. in fact, in periods when we've had sanctions on north korea, china, d.p.r.k. bilateral trade went up. so we don't want this to happen again so i think it will be in the followthrough and how china enforces and implement it is sanctions. >> is north korea feeling more encircled? more you will haver inable? does that perhaps explain the vehemence of the reaction? >> i think that does explain the vitriolic comments over the last few days, certainly yesterday, talking about preemptive strikes. it's those comments that are beyond the pale. i think they do feel under a great deal of pssure, especially the element of china supporting this resolution and the commitment to implement it and all countries coming together on it. so my sense is north korea feels under significant pressure and they're lashing out. this is what they've done in the

past and they're sort of doing -- following the same play book they had in the past with w respect to sanctions in resolutions that are imposed on. >> suarez: in the statement, a general said "when we shell, washington-- which is the stronghold of ooefls-- will be engulf in a sea of fire." have they ever declared themselves to be able to contemplate doing something like that? >> it sounds like typical north korean bluster because we've heard them saying engulfing seoul in a sea of fire. >> suarez: but seoul is over the border between the two countries. >> i think difference is -- no, they cannot right now reach the united states with an i.c.b.m. tiped with a nuclear weapon. having said that, the latest round of tests in december, the ballistic missiles tests and in february the nuclear tests do appear to demonstrate that they have crossed some significant thresholds in terms of these technologies. so my concern is while they may not be able to do this today,

they certainly may be able to do it within a few years and right now there is something stopping them from continuing to move in this direction so it may not be a threat today but it is a threat we need to be concerned about. >> suarez: a commonplace in these stories is the reference to china as north korea's closest ally. you'll see the phrase over and over in stories coming out of that part of the world. is it also a hindrance, a weight on beijing trying to punch its weight in the international arena? >> significant weight on beijing. beijing now with the new government, with the party congress in the past, now the people's congress meeting with shi jinping taking over as the general secretary, now the president, there are as number of domestic incident iss. we hear about territorial issues with japan. north korea with their most recent nuclear test is just making things more complicated for china. of course china has a security and relationship with the north

koreans, the allies. but this has become a hindrance and an irritant. i think china and as evidenced by this resolution that has gone through the united nations i think china is showing their pique with north korea's unacceptable behavior. >> suarez: also home to a new government is seoul, a new president in south korea. is this sort of a shot across her bow? a test to see how she'll react? >> i think most certainly it is. the new south korean president was inaugurated february 25. during her campaign she talked about trying to build trust with north korea and then the first thing the north koreans do is this nuclear test. only days before she steps into office. it's a real test of her leadership, her policies with regard to north korea. our research has shown that the north koreans do do provocation in response to south korea elections and inaugurations going back to 1992 they have

done a provocation after every south korean inauguration. i think she's seen one provocation, she's likely to see more and how she responds will be very important because her policy direction will i think in many ways lead the united states and china as they try to figure out what's the next step after sanctions in dealing with this country. >> suarez: quickly before we go, is it significant that north korea has basically backed away from the armistice? the two countries north and south never made peace after the korean war, it's just a cease-fire. are they at war again? >> well, it is significant they made that this statement. they made the statement in the past but it's significant given the series of events, the nuclear tests, the missile launch, the nuclear test, now these vitriolic statements coming out of pong i can't think with the resolution going forth. north korea needs to come back. china can bring north korea back to the table. pyongyang. not just for the sake of having talks. come back to the table to determine if king jong un, as

his father was committed to the six party process and denuclearization and the statement which spoke to denuclearization, kim jong-un has never committed to this. that needs to be determined and if that can be determined then we could make -- all of us could determine do we reconstitute the six-party process and move forward? china can do this and facilitate movement on that side. >> suarez: joseph detrani, victor cha, thank you both. >> thank you. >> woodruff: we'll be back shortly with a look at the new, strict abortion law in arkansas. but first, this is pledge week on pbs. this break allows your public television station to ask for your support, and that support helps keep programs like ours on the air. >> brown: for those stations not taking a pledge break, we have the story of a pakistani man seeking justice for the murder of his family. jonathan rugman of independent television news reports.

and a warning: some of the story's details may be distressing. >> reporter: ihtisham ul haq is going back to the home he has avoided for almost a year, to the house where he lived with his wife and two children. the walk up the stairs is agonizingly hard because inside and stacked on a single shelf is all that is left of his family. ihtisham finds his children's blankets, his wife's handbag, her pots and pans covered in dust. her name was nargis. they had fallen in love after

had given her a ride in his had given her a ride in his taxi, and they were blissfully happy until she was found dead in a field, stabbed, shot, beaten and strangled. their children were killed first, and there's a simple dignity now in doing up their buttons. the buttons of a four-year-old boy and a baby girl who were thrown from the roof of a building while their mother was forced to watch. the last time he saw his children was when he took them to the shops for a packet of crisps. then, his wife received a phone call. it was urgent. her mother was sick and dying. she had to rush to the bedside. it was a lie. nargis' family disapproved of her marriage to a mere driver, and they were luring her into a trap. when nargis didn't come home,

her husband went back to driving a minibus to distract himself from the worry. his passengers saw photographs of his murdered family in the newspapers as he was driving. he didn't have a clue that the family they were telling him about was his. >> reporter: nargis was murdered near her home town of mardan. it looked like a so-called honor killing, and her family were the prime suspects. but instead of seeking justice, pakistani police arrested ihtisham and his two brothers, who say they were tortured for four months.

>> reporter: last year, this court released ihtisham and his brothers after a judge agreed they had been framed. his dead wife's own mother is now on trial along with her brother, uncle and aunt; but her husband fears the family have paid bribes so that the case will never be heard. it's almost a year since the murders now, yet there have been no funerals. ihtisham is still looking for the bodies of his family. at the local cemetery, he can find no graves with their names on. but the gravedigger does remember a hasty burial and how he dug a hole for a mutilated woman and two small children right here. ihtisham pulls back the grass by hand. he has found his adored wife nargis, his baby girl alisha and his little boy shyan.

he uses a simple brick to mark the spot where he says his wife's family covered up their terrible crime. ihtisham wants a moment alone, but it's too noisy here to think. this is no place to reflect on the murder of his wife, or of his children hurled from a rooftop in front of her.

>> reporter: ihtisham told me his wife had been killed because she had disgraced her rich family by marrying a poor man like him. he carries photocopies of her letters, over 70 of them, full of the desperation of forbidden love. >> "i love you very, very, very, very, very much. i miss you. i miss you very much, all the night and day." >> reporter: back in his old home, this was the moment he dreaded most: sorting through his children's abandoned toys in a neighborhood now too painful to stay long.

>> reporter: and he's talking to me, he says, because it's his only hope of getting his family's killers jailed. >> woodruff: the united nations estimates that more than 5,000 women and girls around the world are killed by family members each year. >> brown: and finally tonight, the republican-controlled legislature in arkansas this week passed the nation's most restrictive abortion law over the democratic governor's veto. it imposes a near-ban on the procedure from the 12th week of pregnancy. ari sreenivasan has our look.

>> sreenivasan: for more on what happened in arkansas and the broader context of what's happening in other states, we turn to suzi parker. she is a reporter with reuters. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> sreenivasan: it's called the human heart beat protection act. what are the political conditions that led to its passage. >> well, in november, the republicans won the statehouse for the first time since reconstruction. so for the first time, they've controlled bothhe hse and the senate. as a result, they have decided to enact or file many abortion bills and the 12-week one was one of many including a 20-week ban that passed on february 28 and was enacted into law. >> sreenivasan: originally the bill would have been abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. why are the number of weeks so crucial in these pieces of legislation? >> i think that a lot of times that we've seen across the

country that state houses are taking the abortion issue and doing these kind of bills, filing these kind of bills because they feel like the federal courts and the supreme court is not working fast enough on overturning "roe v. wade." so that's why there's a whole slew of bills filed right now in the arkansas legislature that addresses abortion restrictionings. >> sreenivasan: so this law in arkansas is not set to take effect until this summer. what are the abortion rights groups planning to do? >> the a.c.l.u. of arkansas, the nation a.l.u. and the center for reproductive rights plan to file a lawsuit, i'm told sooner rather than later, possibly within the next two to four weeks. >> sreenivasan: can you put this in context of legislation happening in other states? >> yesterday on the same day that the arkansas house voted to enact the 12 week law a federal

court judge in idaho struck down a 2011 law that banned abortions at the 20-week stage and similar litigation is going on in arizona and in georgia. >> suarez: we've seen-- or at least reported-- that folks who are in the anti-abortion camp see that this isn't the best strategy. >> that's right, that's right. the council for the national right to life has said that the 12-week law probably would not but upheld in court but we continue to see these kind of bills filed. >> sreenivasan: what about these other maneuvers that are happening in other states. we've got waiting periods in some states. required ultrasounds in others. parental notification is this part of a larger strategy? >> it seems to be. arkansas has several bills filed i know indiana the senate passed an ultrasound bill earlier this

year. virginia tried to do the same last year with a vaginal probe ultrasound that would happen before a woman could get an abortion so, yes, we're seeing this all across the country and a bill was just filed yesterday on the heels of the 12-week law to fund plann parenthood here in arkansas. >> sreenivasan: what does planned parenthood have to say. there aren't too many facilities. arkansas has one facility that does surgical abortions. >> that's correct. and the planned parenthood here in little rock only does medicinal abortions like plan "b" and they feel like they're being politically targeted by these abortion -- the right. is. >> sreenivasan: getting back to the politics of it for a second, was this possible without democratic support? >> six democrats voted yesterday along with republicans to override this but, no, i don't think so. i think if the house had not

turned republican in november with the 2012 elections i don't think they would have the votes to get this through. with the republicans taking over they got seats on committees that would have in the pass stopped a bill like this from going to the floor. >> sreenivasan: what are you hearing on the streets as a reaction to what's been happening in the legislature? >> a lot of people both on the democratic and republican side think that it's a waste of time. they think the legislature should be focusing on the economy, education, the minimum wage. things people seem to think affect their lives on a daily basis more than abortion. >> sreenivasan: and there are still exemptions in this law for rape or insist or medical need? >> the 12-week one does have that. the 20-week one does not allow. >> srnivasan: so the mother wouldn't necessarily be

prosecuted by any doctor performing these would? >> that's right. a doctor would lose their medical license. >> sreenivasan: suzi parker joining us from little rock, arkansas, a reporter with reuters, thanks so much. >> thanks for having me. >> brown: and again, the major developments of the day: the senate confirmed white house counterterror advisor john brennan to be the next director of the c.i.a.; osama bin laden's former son-in-law and spokesman was reported in u.s. custody, facing federal terror charges; and the u.n. security council voted new sanctions on north korea as the north threatened a nuclear strike on the u.s. >> woodruff: and our reporting continues online with a story about the flu season. common sense dictates you shouldn't come to work if you're sick, and a new study by the university of arizona backs that up. germs from one ill employee can spread to half the workforce within just four hours.

that's on our health page. plus, economics correspondent paul solman talks with a child psychologist about the widening achievement gap between affluent and poor children. harvard professor jerome kagan argues for investing in neighborhoods and schools. find their conversation on our homepage. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. jeff? >> brown: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with david brooks and ruth marcus, among others. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations.

and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsoreby macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org